2005 (7) TMI 381

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....harma, Advocate, for the Appellant. [Judgment per : R. Gururajan, J.]. - This appeal is at the instance of the revenue. Facts in brief are as under; M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd., Karur are the manufacturers of articles of Asbestos Cement falling under CH. 68 of CETA, 1985. The assessee had paid duty on provisional basis during the period 20-8-1982 to 30-9-1996 due to various abatements clai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee seeking rejection of the refund claim. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, rejected the refund claim vide Order-in-Original No. 45/2000 on the ground of unjust enrichment. 3. Aggrieved by the same assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner (appeals) in OIA Nos. 144/2002 and 160/2003. The Commissioner (Appeals rejected the appeals and upheld the order-in-original No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he order of the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal in its order has noticed that the finalization was taken placed before the amendment was brought in on 24-5-1999. The Tribunal has further noticed that the issue is no longer res integra in terms of the Order No. 1093/2004 dated 15-6-2004 in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. STI Products India Ltd., wherein it was held that the amended provisions will....